Breitbart's Big Journalism highlights the Khalidi Video that the LA Times refuses to release in any form. The partial basis for their refusal is below, and described more thoroughly at BBJ.
In the case of the Khalidi video, the unnamed source agreed to share the illuminating bit of video evidence with Wallsten, but only with the understanding that the reporter could not reproduce or rebroadcast the images. The journalist had to make a decision: Do I agree to that condition and get to see evidence that no other reporter has seen of Obama meeting with Palestinian Americans? Or do I insist on a full public release of the video, with the likely outcome that the source would share nothing?
Wallsten pushed for the release of the video but when the source would not agree, Wallsten agreed to accept more limited access to the recording. He agreed not to reveal his source nor share the video with anyone else.
The net result: The world got a story that showed Obama the political operator, sliding between two opposite and highly contentious worlds. The audience did not get to view the video, but it got far more than it had without The Times’ reporting. That's the nature of some journalistic negotiations; giving up the perfect to obtain the very good.The big problem with such a position by the LA Times is that they can't take such a posture unless they are beyond reproach. They are not. We are left to trust the journalist to have presented a story that stuck to the facts and forms valid opinion, and that he would not have glossed over facts that would reflect badly on the President. Unfortunately, the media in general, and the LA Times in particular have compromised their credibility, and lost the trust of a majority of free thinking Americans. It is reflected in the polls (reflecting trust in today's media), and more importantly in their flailing circulation.
In short...we don't trust the LA Times to act fairly and appropriately. Therefore, the excuses above fall on deaf ears. RELEASE THE DAMN TAPE!!!!